design for change, creative opportunity or another constraint? · galle w. (2018) design for...

Design for Change,creative opportunity or another constraint?Dr. ir. arch. Waldo GalleProject researcher for the European Regional Development Fundunder the supervisor of prof. Niels De Temmerman, dr. Anne PaduartArchitectural Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Presented at Le Bati Bruxellois, Source de Nouveau Matériaux Meeting, 22 February 2018An ERDF research project in collaboration with UCL, BBRI and Rotor

ANOTHER APPROACH

Design for Change,creative opportunity oranother constraint?

Waldo GalleVrije Universiteit Brussel #2

Once again, we need another approach to designing our buildings.

Things have changed before, and we no longer take the tabula rasa approach as in early modernism, when Le Corbusier could wipe out the existing fabric of Paris and designed in favour of space, light and fresh air new buildings as with a touch of magic.

Today we design with people, their social interaction and the specific neighbourhood in mind; but still we continue replacing buildings, creating a lot of waste and consuming even more materials.

Understanding that the capacity of our planet is limited, we need a new approach to building. One wherein the buildings of our city are the resources of tomorrow. One wherein urban mining has become the new normal.

Image Ville Radieuse (1924), Le Corbusier © FLC/Adagp, Paris, 2007 via archdaily.com

Objective

Deliverables

Method

Raise awareness based on best practices.Provide practitioners with tools and tips.Enable transition, with inspiring challenges.

Prevent waste and stimulate reuse through the design and construction of buildings, while anticipating the impact on practice.

The concepts studied will be the subject of five practical guides for entrepreneurs, project owners, architects and students.

WP5Design, the key for reusing spaces,buildings and components



Trained as architectural engineers, the TRANSFORM team of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel works towards that new approach.

In the BBSM project we study the role of designers and the impact of that new approach on the architectural practice. The end goal is preventing waste and stimulating reuse through the design and construction of buildings. Therefore, we raise awareness based on best practices, provide practitioners with tools, and enable a transition with inspiring challenges.

How the architectural practice will look like in the future, remains unknown. But in this presentation some dilemmas illustrate possible direction.

Image Waldo Galle

In an economy of closed material loops the designer plays an important role.

material → product → component → building → waste↔ ↔



Let us start at the start and ask ourselves why design matters?

Design is the way we shape our buildings. It determines for what they can and can’t be used, how easily they can be adapted, and thus how fast they will become obsolete.

Design is also the way we use our materials. It determines how easily they can be recovered, what their residual value is, and thus if it would be feasible to reuse them in endless loops.

Since these design choices are crucial for the subsequent life cycle stages of a building and its components, it is necessary to act in accordance with that long-term responsibility.

To start an economy of reuse tomorrowwe must already act today.

waste recycling → reuse↔ ↔



But we cannot close material loops by tabula rasa. Reality is a little more complicated that the idea.

More precisely, being part of a transition towards an economy of closed material loops, we should aim at increasingly more effective and efficient reuse over time; a transition wherein increasingly less raw materials are used and that allows to retrieve valuable materials from the building stock.

The fact that making different choices today, would not immediately result in completely closed material loops cannot stop us. If we don’t make different choices today, it will be as difficult to reuse spaces, buildings and their components during the next refurbishment as it is now.



To change something, we must make different choices. But change is challenging.

How will we deal with thosechallenges? Are they just another constraint to the design process, or can we approach them as a creative opportunity? Four cases from Brussels and abroad illustrate this challenge.


OPPORTUNITY / CONSTRAINT

New possibilities and a new design process

constraint or opportunity?



MOD’s is a system of square wooden modules that can be used to assemble various structures.

Disassembly allows the modules to be recovered and reused, while MCB Atelier remains owner and rents and leases the modules to a variety of customers.

Does this modular system limit the creativity of the designer and hamper the traditional design process, or does it facilitate temporary and adaptable design possibilities?

Image MCB Atelier © Julien De Visscher, via nudgesustainabilityhub.com

New expressions and a new profession




The interior of the Dekkera bar, designed by Rotor, is made almostentirely of high quality construction elements dismantled from Brusselsbuildings deemed to be demolished.

The ceiling, for example, is made of the diffusing “mille-feuille” of the Générale de Banque’s former headquarters.

Does reuse entail a new architectural vocabulary and reflect society’s changing values, or should we all start harvesting and mining materials, and change profession?

Image Bar Dekkera, Rotor asbl © Eric Mairiaux, 2017 via rotordb.org

New guidelines and new design ambitions




Systemtrennung, or system separation, is a requirement for all public buildings in the Swiss canton of Bern.

Separating building parts that are expected to change at a different pace allows the Inselspital University Hospital to install up-to-date facilities in the most material efficient way.

Is this requirement another guideline architects should check off, or is it an opportunity to deliver a building that can change and bring enduring value to its owner and users?

Image Inselspital University Hospital, Itten+Brechbühl © Waldo Galle, 2015.

New techniques and new solutions



Waldo GalleVrije Universiteit Brussel 10

Suteki, the Japanese wood frame structure system, is characterized by its reversible connections.

But it is not simply demountable. Its components of engineered wood are standardized, prefabricated, compact in transport and can be assembled quickly and safely.

Are this and other emerging techniques making buildings more complex, or is it an opportunity to optimize the construction process and the sectors’ material use?

Image Suteki Wood System (photographer unknown) via woodinc.be and nieuwbouwzondag.be

A NEW ROLE



If the whole economy changes, should architectural practice change too?

If architects will have to make different choices and foster the transition towards an economy of closed material loops, including a lot of challenges, it is conceivable an architect’s role in the value change of the construction sector can or must change. In this respect, two dimensions of development are identified.


design + process

In an economy of reuse, what is theadded value the architect offers ?

design + plandesign + redesign



The first dimension of development of an architect’s role in the value chain of construction contrasts a short-term with a long-term involvement.

Conventionally, designers deliver a design and support the construction process. With the increasing understanding of the importance of design choices to the lasting value of a building and its components, the design will have to fulfil increasingly more criteria. In some cases, it is already necessary to plan the future of the building: how it could be used in different scenarios and which material loops each component will follow.

However, is it wise to simply hand over that knowledge, or can a designer profit from the developed insights throughout the buildings’ service life?

In a circular economy, will architects design for building users or material managers?

the userthe material owner

the building manager



The second dimension of development of an architect’s role in the value chain of construction contrasts a direct with an indirect design service.

Conventionally, the client is also the investor and future building user or owner and manager. However, in acircular and service-based economy, that is no longer self-evident. If spaces are shared, components rented or materials leased, the owner is not the user, let alone the building manager.

Each will have its demands and needs that the architect will have to align. But who is the architect’s client? And howdoes that change design choices?

DESIGN + CHANGE



So, what are we up to?

We are part of a transition, with increasingly more reuse over time. But if we don’t make different choices now,the next refurbishment it will be as difficult as today.

Designing with and for reuse demands many changes. Each requires us to adapt, but offers also opportunities to the relevance and impact of design.

If the economy changes, it might be wise to rethink the role of the architect and the added value of the profession. Should we offer the same services, to the same people?

Yet, the future is in designers’ hands.

Image Rotor Deconstruction (photographer unknown), via ecodesignlink.be

Dr. ir. arch. Waldo GalleProject researcher for the European Regional Development FundArchitectural Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Presented at Le Bati Bruxellois, Source de Nouveau Matériaux Meeting, 22 February 2018An ERDF research project in collaboration with UCL, BBRI and Rotor

Reference to this document

Galle W. (2018) Design for Change, creative opportunity or another constraint (presentationhandout). Presented at Le Bati Bruxellois, Source de Nouveau Matériaux Meeting, 22 February 2018. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels. 15 p.

More information

vub.be/arch/transformbbsm.brussels

design for change, creative opportunity or another constraint? · galle w. (2018) design for...

Documents